Refugees living in shared accommodation again receive the same living money as other single asylum seekers.
Their social benefits were reduced by a flat rate of ten percent in 2019 because they allegedly can save expenses by shopping and cooking together, but this violates the Basic Law. “The existential needs of those affected are currently not covered,” the Federal Constitutional Court said.
The “special needs level” for single people in refugee homes was introduced on 1 September 2019 by the then federal government consisting of the CDU/CSU and SPD. The reduced rate is the same as for married or cohabiting people.
Under current standard rates, this makes a difference of 45 euros for people who have been legally resident in Germany for at least 18 months. Individual asylum seekers in this group are currently entitled to €449. If you live in collective housing, it’s only 404 euros. This amount is usually reduced by deductions for in-kind benefits such as electricity or furniture. Singles who have not been in the country for a long time receive 367 euros a month and 330 euros in collective accommodation.
This was justified by possible savings through joint management of residents. Such effects exist, for example, when eating, “buying groceries or at least the basic kitchen requirement together in larger quantities and using them together in common kitchens”, as the explanatory statement states. Working together can “be expected”.
Affected violated in their fundamental rights
For the court, however, “it is not recognisable” that these savings are actually achieved – or could be achieved. Three years after the regulation went into effect, there has been no investigation, the First Senate justices said. Those affected are said to have violated their basic right to a decent standard of subsistence.
The specific case concerned a Sri Lankan man, born in 1982, who had been living in shared accommodation near Düsseldorf since 2014. In the law on benefits for asylum seekers it falls under the provision that applies to all people who have been here for at least 18 months. The Karlsruhe decision therefore directly affects only this group. However, the Society for Freedom Rights (GFF), which initiated the process, assumes it can be rolled over to benefits received in the first 18 months.
The regulation on single people who have been here for a long time now needs to be revised. Even for this group the constitutional judges have ordered with immediate effect that all singles are once again recognized the increased rate – whether or not they live in collective housing.
In retrospect, only affected persons whose decisions are not yet final benefit. This is the case if someone has lodged an objection or complaint. These people may be eligible for more money from September 2019.
Linguistic and cultural differences
The GFF had long criticized the justification for the cuts as unrealistic. “Constantly fluctuating housing and different linguistic and cultural backgrounds make working together very unlikely,” said the donation-funded organization, which conducts strategic prosecutions in a targeted manner.
In this case, the GFF had developed a model for social courts to check the “level of special needs” in Karlsruhe. A judge of the Düsseldorf social court made use of it. There, the Sri Lankan man is suing for higher benefits for the months of November 2019 to February 2020. If a specialized court finds a rule that it should apply in a specific case unconstitutional, it suspends the procedure so that Karlsruhe can decide .
The plaintiff now has a secure right of residence and work. During the time relevant to the proceedings, he had shared a room with a Guinean man and a kitchen and bathroom with six other residents from Eritrea, Iraq and Somalia.
“My roommates are fine, but we are not in a close relationship,” the plaintiff quotes in an April 2021 interview. As a Hindu, she does not eat beef and eats vegetarian only once during fasting periods. But even with joint purchases, from his point of view, it is not possible to save money. “If I cook rice for four people, I need four times as much rice.”
The GFF does not have exact figures on how many refugees were last affected by the cut, but suspects it could be more than 100,000. The federal government had put the savings potential of the new regulation in 2019 at around 40 million euros per year.
The Pro Asyl organization and the Berlin Refugee Council have called on the traffic light coalition to completely abolish the law on benefits for asylum seekers and to include refugees in the planned benefit for citizens. The law is discriminatory and leads to “arbitrary, almost arbitrary restrictions on the level of benefits”.
